Talk:Rutger Macklean

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Sweden Mid‑importance

	Sweden portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sweden, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sweden-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SwedenWikipedia:WikiProject SwedenTemplate:WikiProject SwedenSweden articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was Pages Moved Ronhjones ^(Talk) 20:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rutger Macklean, 4th Friherre → Rutger Macklean (1742–1816) — This move is simply to incorporate all the associated moves suggested by Andejons. Andejons's requested move, which has been merged into this one, concerned only Rutger Macklean, 4th Friherre. This expanded move request includes all those affected by the requested removal of "friherre", because Swedish nobles are not enumerated. Labattblueboy (talk) 17:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support "4th friherre" never was part of his title, he was just "friherre" as all males of his family. And while his father had the same name, the son is without any question the most famous of the two. Andejons (talk) 08:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Rutger Macklean is enough. Could also use (1742–1816) to separate him from others with the same name. Närking (talk) 18:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Support unless Rutger Macklean, 2nd Friherre and David Makeléer, 1st Friherre are likewise incorporated in the name change. Proposal should also include how a proposed name change would distinguishing Rutger Macklean, 4th Friherre from Rutger Macklean, 2nd Friherre. If all this is incorpoated into the proposal I will be prepare to change my vote--Labattblueboy (talk) 01:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not well-versed enough in English Wikipedia practices enough to be sure how to make a joint request, but those should indeed be moved as well. There seems to be a confusion with regards to the surnames (which looks like it has something to do with some trouble with how the family was raised to friherre), and I'm not sure if this will be totally correct, but I suggest moving Rutger Macklean, 2nd Friherre to Rutger Macklean (1688-1748) and this article to Rutger Macklean, since he is the more famous (at least in Sweden) by far. Adding (1742–1816) would also be fine with me.

Andejons (talk) 07:53, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not all versed in the subject but here is my attempt at covering all the potential examples I found.

For Macklean's:

Rutger Macklean, 4th Friherre → Rutger Macklean (1742–1816). Redirect Rutger Macklean to Rutger Macklean (1742–1816) and provide a hatnote link to Rutger Macklean (1688-1748) on the Rutger Macklean (1742–1816) article.

Rutger Macklean, 2nd Friherre → Rutger Macklean (1688-1748)

For Makeléer's:

David Makeléer, 1st Friherre → David Makeléer

Hans Makeléer, 1st Baronet → Hans Makeléer

Johan Makeléer, 2nd Baronet → Johan Makeléer

Others

~~Sir Johan von Friesendorff, 1st Baronet → Johan von Friesendorff~~

Now in a seperate request. --Labattblueboy (talk) 17:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does this list seem complete and redirect appropriate? --Labattblueboy (talk) 17:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Complete: hope so (google didn't reveal any other articles using the style of "1st friherre"), appropriate: probably. Some of the above persons did hold English titles, but I think that the Swedish titles are more important here.

Andejons (talk) 07:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also think it looks good. Närking (talk) 21:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not opposed to the moves, so long as the infoboxes and ancestor charts keep the numbering system. Rutger Macklean (1688-1748) maybe the Wikipedia way to name an article, but the numbering system is much more easy to understand when you are looking at several generations of people at the same time, as seen in the ancestor charts and the infoboxes. Telling me that "Rutger Macklean (1688-1748)" was the grandfather has no meaning to me, but when I see in the chart that "Rutger Macklean, 2nd Friherre" was the grandfather, I instantly know where in time and generations I am. I disagree with changing Baronets, they are labeled as Baronets in Wikipedia. See Category:Baronets_in_the_Baronetage_of_Nova_Scotia --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is just bringing the articles in line with the current naming convention used for nobles in Sweden and Finland. I'm not saying this is the best way, it's just the current way. If you are concerned with the current naming convention (or lack thereof) for Swedish nobles I would suggest making comment on the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility) talk page. --Labattblueboy (talk) 06:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I brought up several points, I don't know which, if any you are addressing. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But there was not ever any "Rutger Macklean, 2nd Friherre". ALL Mackleans were titled "Friherre", without any numbering. There is absolutely no gain in numbering them except to keep track on who in the family was born first.

- - Here is the chart for which this article was derived --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the numbering system has mislead you: the older Rutger Macklean was the father of the younger Rutger Macklean.

Andejons (talk) 18:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not proven The only evidence for the proposed spelling is a website; John Patterson MacLean, the standard historian of the Macleans, asserts the descent from Hector Og; more importantly, he asserts the spelling changed from MacLean to Macleir (no ks). I will not be able to check the more recent works by Nicholas Maclean-Bristol until tomorrow. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This wouldn't preclude a future move, the current one is just to remove the titles.--Labattblueboy (talk) 21:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But let's see the evidence for the proposed spelling all the same; better, if possible, to get it right once than to move and move and move. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Macklean" is used by Nationalencyklopedin [1]. I think also that's the name which they took up when introduced on Riddarhuset, but some historians have chosen to "normalise" it to "Maclean".

Now, what really would need some research, is what last name to give to Rutger Macklean the elder. From this article, it seems likely that he should be called "Macklier".

Andejons (talk) 10:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to the official Svenskt Biografiskt Lexikon it was Rutger Macklier's sons who started to spell the name Macklean when they were introduced to Riddarhuset in 1784. Rutger the elder has the name Macklier in the same books. So I think we should use that speling here also. Närking (talk) 08:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thus:

That seems a good solution. Andejons (talk) 18:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.